Current Class Action Suits Handled by Our California Lemon Attorneys

Following is a list of the current cases of our Auto Fraud Legal Center that have commenced as class action lawsuits, many under California’s financial disclosure laws. If you were a customer of any of the dealerships/businesses listed below and are interested in learning whether you may be a member of a potential or certified class because of a California car lemon, feel free to contact Hawk Barry at (800)466-5366, ext. 124, to learn more, or click his name to send him an e-mail for a free consultation with a California lemon attorney. You may be protected by California used car lemon laws. You can also see some of our recent case victories.

NOTE: This list includes ongoing cases in which the defendant denies any wrongdoing. The complaints filed in these cases are a matter of public record, copies of which may be viewed by clicking on the links below.

Nelson v. Pearson Ford

San Diego County Case No. GIC881178
Court of Appeal Case No. D054369

The Court certified two classes in this case. Class 1 consisted of all persons who, since March 2, 2003, (1) purchased a vehicle from Pearson Ford for personal use, and (2) on a later date executed an Acknowledgment of Rewritten Contract, and (3) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%. Class 2 consisted of all persons who, since March 2, 2003, executed a Retail Installment Sale Contract with Pearson Ford that included in the “Cash Price of Motor Vehicle,” on Line 1.A.1 of the contract the cost of insurance.

Hawk Barry served as trial counsel for Plaintiff and the classes at the trial in August 2008. The Court entered judgment in favor of both classes. The Court awarded members of Class 1 $50, and awarded members of Class 2 a refund of all of their payments, as well as having the option to rescind their contracts. To see a copy of the judgment, click here.

Both sides have filed appeals on various issues in the case. To track the progress of the appeal, click here

Raceway Ford Cases

Riverside County Case No. RICJCCP4476

The Court certified three classes in this case. Class 1 consisted of all persons who, since January 12, 2001, (1) purchased a vehicle from Raceway Ford, for personal use, (2) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract, and (3) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%. Class 2 consisted of all persons who, since January 12, 2001, purchased a used vehicle from Raceway Ford for personal use and were charged “California Tire Fees” even though Raceway Ford had previously paid the tire fees to the seller of the tires at the time Raceway Ford purchased the tires. Class 3 consisted of all persons except for Robert Loverso who, since January 12, 2001, purchased a diesel vehicle from Raceway Ford for personal use and were charged a smog fee and a smog certification fee.

Please see www.racewayfordclassaction.com for more information about this case and important dates.

Trial is set for March 1, 2010.
To read the operative complaint, click here.

Montano v. Carriage Motors

Riverside County Case No. RIC458585

The Complaint seeks relief for two proposed classes. Class 1 is defined as all persons who, since October 13, 2002, (1) purchased a vehicle from Carriage Motors for personal use, (2) on a later date rescinded their original Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”), and (3) signed a subsequent or second RISC for the purchase of the same vehicle, which RISC was dated the date of the original RISC and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%. Class 2 is defined as all persons who, since October 13, 2002, (1) purchased a vehicle from Carriage Motors for personal use pursuant to a RISC, (2) made a deferred down payment, and (3) whose RISC does not disclose that some portion of the down payment would be deferred until not later than the due date of the second regularly scheduled installment under the RISC and that was not subject to a finance charge.

Trial has not yet been set.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, copy the case number above, click on the following link, and paste in the case number. http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/

Kugler v. Grass Valley Ford

Nevada County Case No. 73538

The Court certified the following class: All persons who purchased a used vehicle for personal use from Grass Valley Ford Lincoln Mercury Nissan that was not equipped with new tires, but who were charged a California Tire Fee.

Trial is set for May 4, 2010.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

Aguirre v. Mossy Nissan
San Diego County Case No. 37‑2009‑00089796‑CU‑BT‑CTL

The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class: All persons who within four years of the filing of this action (a) purchased a vehicle from Mossy Nissan for personal use; (b) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract; and (c) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%

Trial has not yet been set.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, copy the case number above, click on the following link, and paste in the case number, click case type “Civil” and location “San Diego”. http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1056871&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Castaneda v. Spreen, Inc. dba Honda

San Bernardino County Case No. CIVSS816398
Court of Appeal Case No. E049503

The Complaint sought relief for the following proposed class: All persons in the four years prior to the date of filing of the complaint in this action, who (a) purchased a vehicle from Defendant Spreen for personal use; (b) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract; and (c) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.

The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Spreen Honda. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP, has filed an appeal on behalf of Mr. Castaneda and the proposed class.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To track the progress of the appeal, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, copy the case number above, click on the following link, and paste in the case number. http://170.164.31.10/openaccess/

Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC dba DCH Honda

Riverside County Case No. RIC 505227

The Complaint sought relief for two proposed classes. Class 1 was defined as all persons who, between July 28, 2003, and the present, purchased a vehicle for personal use from DCH Honda and on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract and signed a second or subsequent purchase contract for the same vehicle, which was dated the date of the original purchase contract and which involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%. Class 2 was defined as all persons who, between July 28, 2003, and the present, executed a Retail Installment Sale Contract for the purchase of a vehicle for personal use with DCH Honda where registration and licensing fees were not properly disclosed.

The trial court denied DCH Honda’s motion to compel arbitration, and the dealership appealed the ruling. Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP, is defending the appeal on behalf of Ms. Fisher and the proposed classes.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To track the progress of the appeal, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, copy the case number above, click on the following link, and paste in the case number. http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/

Gama v. Moss Bros., Inc.

San Bernardino County Case No. CIVDS915868

The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class: All persons who, since June 16, 2008, (a) purchased a vehicle from Moss Bros. for personal use pursuant to a retail installment sale contract; (b) on a later date received a “Notification of Non-assignment of Contract” letter; and (c) who were not notified within ten days of the execution of their purchase contract that Moss Bros. was exercising its contractual right of rescission by some form of notice other than the Notification of Non-assignment of Contract letter.

Trial has not yet been set.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, copy the case number above, click on the following link, and paste in the case number. http://170.164.31.10/openaccess/

Gao v. Assael BMW Mini of Monrovia

Los Angeles County Case No. BC 414156

The Complaint seeks relief for two proposed classes. Class 1 is defined as all persons who, within the past four years, (a) purchased a vehicle from Assael BMW Mini for personal use, and (b) signed a Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”) that failed to separately itemize the amounts paid for license fees and registration/transfer/titling fees on the retail installment sale contract. Class 2 is defined as all persons who, within the last four years, (a) purchased a vehicle from Assael BMW Mini for personal use, and (b) were automatically charged $28 by Assael BMW Mini for the “Optional DMV Electronic Filing Fee.”

Trial has not yet been set.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, copy the case number above, click on the following link, and paste in the case number. http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

Kim v. KDF Automotive Group dba El Cajon Mitsubishi

San Diego County Case No. 37‑2008‑00092250‑CU‑BT‑CTL

The court certified the following class: All persons who, in the four years prior to the filing of this action, (a) purchased a vehicle from Defendant ECM for personal use; (b) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract; and (c) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 25, 2010.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

Law v. Bob Baker Toyota/Scion and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

San Diego County Case No. 37‑2008‑00094532‑CU‑CO‑CTL

The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class: all persons who leased a vehicle from Bob Baker for personal use and whose “Optional DMV Electronic Filing Fee” was not labeled as such on their lease.

The lawsuit includes a sub-class for consumers whose leases were assigned to Toyota Motor Credit Corporation.

Trial is currently scheduled for December 3, 2010.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

Mariotti v. Fladeboe Volkswagen and VW Credit

Orange County Case No. 30-2008‑00113991‑CU‑FR‑CJC

The complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class: all persons who, in the four years prior to the filing of this complaint, (1) purchased a vehicle from Fladeboe VW for personal use, (2) on a later date rescinded their original Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”), and (3) signed a subsequent or second RISC for the purchase of the same vehicle, which RISC was dated the date of the original RISC and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.

A sub-class is alleged on behalf of all consumers whose contracts were assigned to VW Credit.

Trial has not yet been set.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To view the court's register of actions, click on the following link, click "Accept Terms", enter the case number, and click search.
https://ocapps.occourts.org/civilwebShopping/Login.do

Richardson v. Homer Heller, Inc. (Heller Ford)

San Diego County Case No. 37‑2009‑00058390‑CU‑FR‑NC

The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class: all persons who within four years of the filing of this action (a) purchased a vehicle from Heller Ford for personal use; and (b) on a later date signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%

Trial has not yet been set.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, copy the case number above, click on the following link, and paste in the case number, click case type “Civil” and location “North County”. http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1056871&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Roberts v. El Cajon Motors dba El Cajon Ford

San Diego County Case No. 37‑2009‑00092495‑CU‑CO‑CTL

The Complaint seeks relief for two proposed classes. Class 1 is defined as all persons who, in the four years prior to the filing of this complaint, (1) purchased a vehicle from El Cajon Ford for personal use, (2) on a later date rescinded their original Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”), and (3) signed a subsequent or second RISC for the purchase of the same vehicle, which RISC was dated the date of the original RISC and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%. Class 2 is defined as all persons who, in the four years prior to the filing of this complaint, (1) purchased a vehicle from El Cajon Ford for personal use pursuant to a RISC, (2) agreed to pay some or all of the down payment at a date after execution of the contract, and (3) whose RISC does not disclose that some portion of the down payment would be deferred until not later than the due date of the second regularly scheduled installment under the RISC and that was not subject to a finance charge.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

Trial has not yet been set.

Serrano v. Selma Auto Mall

Fresno County Case No. 09CECG01076

The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class: all persons who since March 27, 2005, (a) purchased a vehicle from Selma Auto Mall for personal use; (b) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract; and (c) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.

Trial has not yet been set.

To read the operative complaint, click here.

To see the Court’s register of actions for this case, click on the following link:
http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/cprodsnp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=09CECG01076&begin_date=&end_date=

Let us review your case now

Auto Fraud Information Center

Lemon Law Information Center

Current Class Action Suits Handled by Our California Lemon Attorneys